Historically there has been a division between data management and process management. Many solutions have been designed to either manage pieces of data in a repository or navigate data through a manufacturing or design process. In environments where large quantities of data need to be subjected to some type of process, qualities from both solutions are required. For example, a typical data management system may permit data to be moved from one repository to another. Once the data arrives, a different system is employed to initiate the data into a process flow. In addition, many solutions fail to record the results of the process into the data management system for direct association with the data. These systems lack the capability to audit the data against prescribed criteria or ensure that data integrity is maintained during and after process execution in a design control system for concurrent engineering.
In the article entitled "Beyond EDA (electronic design automation)", published in Electronic Business Vol.19, No.6 June 1993 P42-46, 48, it was noted that while billions of dollars have been spent over the past (then and still last) five years for electronic design automation systems (EDA) and software to help companies cut their design cycle, a huge gulf remains between design and manufacturing. To eliminate the gulf and thus truly comply with the commandments, companies are extending the concept of concurrent engineering to enterprise wide computing. The concept, which calls for integrating all the disciplines from design to manufacturing is becoming the business model of the 1990s. Achieving an enterprise wide vision requires tying together existing systems and programs and managing the data that flows among them. Software that makes that linkage possible is largely in the class known by two names: product data management (PDM) or product information management (PIM). Mr. Robinson, the author, described the experiences of several companies with PIM and PDM, in particular Sherpa and Cadence.
The design of complex parts, such as integrated circuits, computers, or other complex machines in a complete manufacturing operation like IBM's requires computer capability, with computers capable of processing multiple tasks, and allowing concurrent data access by multiple users. The IBM System 390 operating system known as Multiple Virtual Storage (MVS) allows such things as relational database management methods, such as the TIME system described by U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,316, to be used to reduce design time. The TIME system is used within IBM for the purposes described in the patent during circuit design. However, these prior efforts treated design as directed to an entity and did not achieve the efficiencies provided by the system detailed in our description of our invention, which also can run under MVS, but also under other operating systems. Our detailed description of our invention will illustrate that we have furthered the objects of the invention of U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,316 by increasing the flexibility of a number of circuit designers who may concurrently work on designing the same integrated circuit chip and reducing the interference between chip designers. With the prior system, a user (a person, processor or program capable of using data in a relational database) was given a private copy of the master table. Alteration of a row in the user table was not automatically updated in the master table, because a lock mechanism prevented the row update, but that was an great improvement at the time, because no longer did multiple users have to wait for copying of a table, each time data from a user needed to be updated. This row locking and treatment of data has become widespread in the relational database field, and it has been enabled for use with multiple instances of a platform even on Unix machines today. We should note that also in the MVS art, there have been proposed various library systems, e.g. those represented by U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,333,312 and 5,333,315 and others which relate to IBM's Image Object Distribution Manager in the ImagePlus product line of IBM, and IBM's Office Vision are examples of systems enabling control of a source document while allowing access by multiple users. Implementation of these patented ideas enable synchronous and asynchronous copying of a document into a folder in a target library. These methods provide for check out of a document and its placement in a target library while locking the document in the source library to prevent changes while the checked out document is out. But these steps are only some of the many things that are needed to bring a product to a release state. Bringing a product to a release state is an object of the current developments relating to design control in a manufacturing setting.
Concurrent engineering is required among many engineers working in parallel and at different locations worldwide. Furthermore, as noted by Oliver Tegel in "Integrating human knowledge into the product development process" as published in the Proceedings of the ASME Database Symposium, Engineering Data Management: Integrating the Engineering Enterprise ASME Database Symposium 1994. ASCE, New York, N.Y., USA. p 93-100, specialists who are not working directly together are often needed for solving the demanding tasks that arise during the development of today's advanced products. During product development, assistance is required from other departments such as manufacturing, operations scheduling, etc. Even the vendors and customers should be integrated into the product development process to guarantee the product developed will be accepted in the market.
There is a need for integrators/coordinators/model builders and the designers to work together to create a next release. Information from different people in different forms must be collected aiming at a final good design. A problem occurring during product development is, how to know which people to contact for what kind of information, but that is only one. During all of the process concurrent engineering, particularly for the needs of complex very large scaled integrated system design, needs to keep everything in order and on track, while allowing people to work on many different aspects of the project at the same time with differing authorizations of control from anywhere at anytime.
For the purpose of the following discussion, need to say that we call our system a "Computer Integrated Design Control System and Method" because it encompasses the ability to integrate CIM, EDA, PDM and PIM and because it has the modularity making it possible to fulfill these needs in a concurrent engineering environment particularly useful to the design of complex very large scaled integrated systems as employed in a computer system itself. The making of these systems is a worldwide task requiring the work of many engineers, whether they be employed by the manufacturer or by a vendor, working in parallel on many complete parts or circuits which are sub-parts of these parts. So as part of our development, we reviewed the situation and found that no-one that we have found is able to approach the creation of "Computer Integrated Design Control System" like ours or employ the methods needed for our environment. Our methods are modular and fulfill specific functions, and yet make it possible to integrate them within a complete "Computer Integrated Design Control System".
A patent literature review, especially one done with retrospective hindsight after understanding our own system and method of using our "Computer Integrated Design Control System" will show, among certainly others, aspects of DMS systems which somewhat approach some aspect of our own design, but are lacking in important respects. For instance, after review of our detailed description, one will come to appreciate that in modern data processing systems the need often arises (as we provide) to aggregate disparate data objects into a cohesive collection. These data objects may reside at various levels of completion, spanning multiple versions and/or repositories in a hierarchical, multi-tiered data management system. Additionally, these data aggregations may need to be hierarchical themselves, in order to enable the creation of large groupings of data with varying levels of granularity for the data included therein. In such a data management system, the end-users of the data aggregates are not necessarily the "owners" of all or any of the data objects comprising the data aggregate, but they have a need to manage the particular collection. Management of a data aggregation may include creating the aggregation, adding or deleting data objects, moving the aggregation through a hierarchical, multi-tiered data management system and tracking the status of the data aggregation in real-time while maintaining the coherence of the data aggregation. Creation of a data aggregation or the addition of a data object to an existing data aggregate may need to be accomplished within the data management system or via data objects imported into the data management system through application program interfaces for the data management system.
With such a focus, when one reviews the art, one will certainly find, currently, data management systems which provide means for grouping components of a data system to facilitate the retrieval thereof. However, these data management systems are insufficient and lacking because they fail to address the above-referenced need for grouping disparate data items, just to mention one aspect of our own developments.
Another example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,201,047 to Maki et al. (issued Apr. 6, 1993) teaches an attribute based classification and retrieval system wherein it is unnecessary to implement an artificial code for indexing classifications. The patent teaches a method for defining unique, user-determined attributes for storing data which are capable of being readily augmented without necessitating the modification of the underlying query used for retrieval thereof. However, the Maki et al. patent requires that the data items being grouped share at least one common attribute to enable the grouping, and therefore fails to address the problems of managing data aggregates formed from disparate and unrelated data objects.
Other data management systems address the creation of data aggregates coupled to particular processes implemented in the data system. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,321,605 to Chapman et al. issued Jun. 14, 1994) teaches the creation of a Bill of Resources table which represents the resources consumed in the performance of a given process. Attribute tables for the given resources are utilized to determine whether additional processes which will consume some or all of the resources of a given process can be initiated. The patent to Chapman et al., requires that each process to be initiated have a particular Bill of Resources aggregate associated therewith. This tightly coupled construct does not permit the creation of data aggregates not related to a particular process implemented in the data management system. Furthermore, since a process must be contemplated in order to create a Bill of Resources table, Chapman et al. do not permit the creation of aggregates without foreknowledge of the process that requires the resource. Thus, in a manner similar to that described for Maki et al., Chapman et al. require that a relationship between the elements exist prior to the formation of the Bill of Resources grouping.
Also, unrelated DMS systems are known which are used for hardware implementations which enable related data in a computer memory, storage or I/O subsystem to be physically grouped in proximity to other such data so as to improve hardware performance, application performance, and/or to solve memory management issues are known. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,418,949 to Suzuki (issued May 23, 1995) teaches a file storage management system for a database which achieves a high level of clustering on a given page and teaches loading related data from a secondary storage unit at high speed. The patent uses map files including a metamap file for defining page to page relations of data. These hardware implementations are not related to the present invention, as they involve the management of the physical contents of a data object rather than the management of aggregations of data objects as we perform the methods of our present invention. It is contemplated, however, that such known hardware techniques may be implemented in a system comprising the aggregation management features disclosed herein, thereby further augmenting the overall system efficiency.
During our development process we have viewed the development of others. Even the best of the EDA (electronic design automation) design houses don't have an integrated approach like we have developed.
For the purposes of this background, we will discuss some of the various approaches already used specifically viewing them in light of our own separate developments which we will further elaborate in our detailed description of our invention which follows later in this specification.
In the field of EDA, there are today two preeminent vendors of development software, Cadence Design Systems, Inc. and ViewLogic, Inc. Of course there are others, but these two companies may have a greater range of capability than the others. Also, there are in house systems, such as IBM's ProFrame which we think is unsuitable for use. It will not function well as a stand-alone DM point tool for integration into a foreign framework. But even the largest microelectronic systems are customers of the two named vendors which we will compare. Today, a DCS, it will be seen, without our invention, would require fitting together pieces of disparate systems which don't interact, and even such a combination would not achieve our desirable results.
For the purposes of comparison, after our own description of our environment, our "Computer Integrated Design Control System", we will discuss the features of the Cadence Team Design Manager Version 4.4 and ViewLogic's ViewData in Sections which compare with and refer to the Sections of our own preferred "Computer Integrated Design Control System" as set forth at the beginning of our detailed description of our invention. This comparison will show the shortcomings of these prior systems, as well as some changes which could be made to these prior systems to allow them to improve performance in our concurrent engineering environment by taking advantage of aspects of our own development as alternative embodiments of our invention.
Historically many attempts have been made to collect or group objects together in order to solve typical data management problems. These problems may include identifying all of the files used to create a model, or grouping files together to facilitate transport through a medium. The intent is usually to ensure the group remains together for a specified period of time.
The most common method in use today is to create a listing of files commonly referred to as a Bill of Materials. Many commercial products permit creation of such a BOM, but these BOM are static list BOM. For example, if one of the members of the BOM disappears or gets changed, the user is unaware that the original data set used to create the BOM is no longer valid.
We have created a new process which we call an Aggregation Manager which can be used in Bill of Materials applications but which overcomes prior disadvantages and also one which can be used in our Computer Integrated Design Control System.